IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Sidrops] [GROW] IXP Route Server question

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Sat, 12 March 2022 22:41 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
X-Original-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidrops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EF7C3A0863; Sat, 12 Mar 2022 14:41:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jTc_I2cZyUHh; Sat, 12 Mar 2022 14:41:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:8006::18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D1543A085E; Sat, 12 Mar 2022 14:41:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ryuu.rg.net) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1nTAQT-000DLs-DH; Sat, 12 Mar 2022 22:41:29 +0000
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2022 14:41:28 -0800
Message-ID: <m2lexe6bfr.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Cc: GMO Crops <grow@ietf.org>, SIDR Operations WG <sidrops@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <517ea9bd-4ee1-44cb-3373-eb0552191b2b@foobar.org>
References: <SA1PR09MB8142093BE50A27A7EED132D884099@SA1PR09MB8142.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> <0db7749f-66fd-5def-a8bb-3ee316cf2ca1@foobar.org> <SA1PR09MB81421BCBA7FB59615A7638A5840B9@SA1PR09MB8142.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> <fa0b5b32-6541-f493-e02b-fe75d44dacd5@foobar.org> <20220311072307.gymne3ofnfsrinkc@benm-laptop> <517ea9bd-4ee1-44cb-3373-eb0552191b2b@foobar.org>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/26.3 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sidrops/_ma4NApDRkrBDK1Nl1YSwOt9b80>
Subject: Re: [Sidrops] [GROW] IXP Route Server question
X-BeenThere: sidrops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: A list for the SIDR Operations WG <sidrops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sidrops/>
List-Post: <mailto:sidrops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops>, <mailto:sidrops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2022 22:41:37 -0000

> given that they're a shrinking rarity, would it not make sense to
> completely exclude non-transparent RSs from the ASPA definition? In
> the short term this would cause problems for ASNs which connect to
> non-transparent RSs, but there are hardly any left, and only one
> sizeable one.
> 
> I wonder whether it's a good idea to design a long term security
> mechanism which includes a specific carve-out for a legacy corner case
> like this.

i do not wonder about adding complexity to specs and code in a security
application.  i know it's a bad idea.

randy

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email